Advertisement
Case Report| Volume 25, ISSUE 5, P272-274, May 2022

His-bundle pacing to treat an unusual case of chest pain after pacemaker implant

Published:November 21, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jccase.2021.11.002

      Abstract

      A 63-year-old man with hypertension and 3-vessel coronary artery disease previously treated with coronary artery bypass graft was admitted to our emergency room complaining of chest pain. He had undergone pacemaker implant 5 months before due to paroxysmal advanced atrioventricular block. Electrocardiography and troponin testing were unremarkable. Echocardiography and chest X-ray ruled out lead displacement and perforation. Interrogation showed normal parameters [right atrium: impedance 550 Ohm bipolar, sensing 2.4 mV bipolar; threshold 0.50 V/0.4 ms bipolar; right ventricle (RV): impedance 580 Ohm bipolar, sensing > 25 mV bipolar; threshold 1.5 V/0.4 ms bipolar and 0.4 V/0.4 ms unipolar]. Pain was evoked only during RV pacing. An electrophysiology study demonstrated painful RV pacing from multiple sites. We hypothesized that pain was associated with pacing-induced dyssynchrony. His-bundle pacing (HBP) was considered as a solution.
      We achieved HBP with a bipolar fixed-screw catheter connected to a cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker generator. During HBP above threshold (4.00 V/1.00 ms) the patient did not complain of any pain. He was discharged 3 days later pain-free with His-bundle lead amplitude set at 5.00 V/1.00 ms. After 6 months the patient was asymptomatic, with the device showing normal functioning.
      This is the first clinical experience of painful RV pacing treated with HBP.
      <Learning objective: Painful right ventricular pacing in the absence of perforation is a rare but potentially underdiagnosed condition. Ventricular dyssynchrony could represent the underlying mechanism. Physiological electromechanical activation achieved via His-bundle pacing could represent an effective therapeutic option.>

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Cardiology Cases
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Goli AK
        • Kaszala K
        • Osman MN
        • Lucke J
        • Carrillo R.
        Chest pain associated with moderator band pacing.
        Tex Heart Inst J. 2014; 41: 551-553
        • Perin E
        • Petersen F
        • Massumi A.
        Rate-related left bundle branch block as a cause of non-ischemic chest pain.
        Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1991; 22: 45-46
        • Shvilkin A
        • Ellis ER
        • Gervino EV
        • Litvak AD
        • Buxton AE
        • Josephson ME.
        Painful left bundle branch block syndrome: Clinical and electrocardiographic features and further directions for evaluation and treatment.
        Heart Rhythm. 2016; 13: 226-232
        • Cannon RO
        • Quyyumi AA
        • Schenke WH
        • Fananapazir L
        • Tucker EE
        • Gaughan AM
        • Gracely RH
        • Cattau EL
        • Epstein SE.
        Abnormal cardiac sensitivity in patients with chest pain and normal coronary arteries.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990; 16: 1359-1366
        • Critchley HD
        • Wiens S
        • Rotshtein P
        • Öhman A
        • Dolan RJ.
        Neural systems supporting interoceptive awareness.
        Nat Neurosci. 2004; 7: 189-195
        • Suryanarayana PG
        • Frankel DS
        • Marchlinski FE
        • Schaller RD.
        Painful left bundle branch syndrome treated successfully with permanent His bundle pacing.
        Heart Rhythm Case Rep. 2018; 4: 439-443